Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years - The Sunday Times

"The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed." Looks like it could be an interesting analysis; but I don't have subscriber rights in order to read the full article.

ANY IDEAS OF WHOM THE SUSPECT IS?

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years


The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports


The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013

Comment (0)
Print

Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)

THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as a prime suspect by Scotland Yard.
A tam of hand picked former MI 5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much needed breakthrough for their missing daughter Madeleine McCann.

-------------------------------------------

that's all you can see without subscribing. So the parents, with all the money in the fund, had this info 5 years ago - I vaguely recall them having some crack jack MI5 people working for them. at the time I pooh-poohed it because it sounded very cloak and daggerish.

I wonder that they did not follow that lead up, they had their own investigators?

this is the "new" (5 year old) evidence SY has. not the "new" evidence of Smith man that the PJ have.

Interestingly this is the same guy? Or the guy about whom MCCANNS suppressed evidence because it was found in a report that was critical of THEM.

is this a group of investigators the public (you and me) was unaware of.

The full article is now available at jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-mu

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.


Click to enlarge
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

IF it had been 'published' there would have been NO FUND!

That's why, imo, the McScams threatened the 'authors'

5 YEARS of FRAUDULENT 'fund' imo.

Murdoch 'paper'

Getting in BEFORE as he, Murdoch, said 'i'm here to protect this one' meaning Rebekah Brooks.

Her 'trial' scheduled NEXT week.

What better way to keep Rebekah out of news than 'expose' the McS?

Surely you didn't think Rupert would choose Kate over Rebekah, did you?

   

eta: I'd bet my bottom dollar that NOTW 'hacked' the Hacked Off campaigners GM&KM!

FROM DAY 1.

And they know more about the McScams than the McScams know about themselves!

OH MY GOD.

Bingo.

it was Oakley International, the "top spies" and their report was hidden and the relationship ended because it brought up serious anomalies in McCanns statements - so they brushed it under the rug! And this is the Smith man sighting that SY thinks is so important!

That meas they've got this hypercritical report turned in, that McCanns threatened to sue if it was revealed, so THEY PREVENTED THIS IMPORTANT LEAD SCOTLAND YARD NOW FINDS CRITICAL FROM COMING TO LIGHT BECAUSE THE REPORT WAS CRITICAL OF MCCANNS


bY gOD, it takes swine to show where the truffles are. And this is their own fault, once again, no one else to blame but themselves. If this guy turns out to be the actual guy and they hid this report, what a shameful pair they truly are. 

widowan wrote:OH MY GOD.

Bingo.

it was Oakley International, the "top spies" and their report was hidden and the relationship ended because it brought up serious anomalies in McCanns statements - so they brushed it under the rug! And this is the Smith man sighting that SY thinks is so important!

That meas they've got this hypercritical report turned in, that McCanns threatened to sue if it was revealed, so THEY PREVENTED THIS IMPORTANT LEAD SCOTLAND YARD NOW FINDS CRITICAL FROM COMING TO LIGHT BECAUSE THE REPORT WAS CRITICAL OF MCCANNS


bY gOD, it takes swine to show where the truffles are. And this is their own fault, once again, no one else to blame but themselves.  If this guy turns out to be the actual guy and they hid this report, what a shameful pair they truly are. 

Like i said REPORT PUBLISHED = NO 'FUND'

I'd imagine, i don't know, the Law firm that 'threatened the authors' COULD have a case to answer for 'perverting the course of justice' because they would have KNOWN what it was to be 'surpressed'

And for witholding 'relevent and pertinent' information from an investigation into a missing child case.

jeanmonroe wrote:

widowan wrote:OH MY GOD.

Bingo.

it was Oakley International, the "top spies" and their report was hidden and the relationship ended because it brought up serious anomalies in McCanns statements - so they brushed it under the rug! And this is the Smith man sighting that SY thinks is so important!

That meas they've got this hypercritical report turned in, that McCanns threatened to sue if it was revealed, so THEY PREVENTED THIS IMPORTANT LEAD SCOTLAND YARD NOW FINDS CRITICAL FROM COMING TO LIGHT BECAUSE THE REPORT WAS CRITICAL OF MCCANNS


bY gOD, it takes swine to show where the truffles are. And this is their own fault, once again, no one else to blame but themselves.  If this guy turns out to be the actual guy and they hid this report, what a shameful pair they truly are. 

Like i said REPORT PUBLISHED = NO 'FUND'

I think their top priority at the time was always to defend themselves. Their reputation. They hid this information and threatened to sue if it came out, directing the investigation to the non credible (found to be so by PJ and their own detectives!! Former MI5 guys!!) bundleman sighting because it provided an alibi for Gerry and the other sighting was part of a report CRITICAL OF THEM and also calling into question the responsible parenting.

OMG, OMG, OMG. This is the jackpot, right here ladies and gentlemen. If any proof were needed of their character here you have it, if you still want to help look for Madeleine do so by contributing to missing children funds that do not go to this pair of crooks; they went out of their way to hide information on their daughter's disappearance because it disgraced them.

I can't believe that knowing this Exton would not have got this to the PJ or SY some how.

He may well have been astonished to see his report, his info and his efits presented as new evidence "uncovered" by SY.

ABSOLUTELY GOB SMACKED.

But then I'm just part of that internet hate campaign that so unfairly targets this pair of lying child neglectors. Now I am interested in what else they found that SY may have been ignoring to focus on the work of Oakley and in particular Exton.

The evidence was "Contaminated" because Halligen hadn't PAID Exton? What nonsense! they did the report, if they didn't get paid for it that has nothing to do with it.

Surely this has got to be 'gold dust' to GA?

If the PJ had had this 'information' then they may have not shelved the case and McScams would have still been arguidos!

But the McScams SURPRESSED IT!

I seriously worry about the twins 'welfare and safety' now!

jeanmonroe wrote:I'd imagine, i don't know, the Law firm that 'threatened the authors' COULD have a case to answer for 'perverting the course of justice' because they would have KNOWN what it was to be 'surpressed'

And for witholding 'relevent and pertinent' information from an investigation into a missing child case.

Yes, they held the investigators to the clause about confidentiality.

What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive - whether it is via lawyers or whomever.

Now will SY sit and ignore the other evidence in that report that the parents could have found Madeleine dead - that their accounts were not truthful?

Thinking of the wide eyed expression on Redwood's face in that Crimewatch, look at what we FOUND. What a numpty. He did not find it and now that report is not only available to SY but I presume to the PJ as well.

And in the Sunday Times they repeatedly say the FUND did not want this "distraction" getting into the papers... how about getting to the police?

Find Madeleine 'fund' mentioned 10 times in article!

Ho hum.

"FOLLOW THE MONEY" as they say!

Mitchell MUST have KNOWN about this, but still took his 'wages' from the 'fund'

I wonder if he is busily transferring BACK into the 'fund' all the 'donations' he took for his 'services' right now.

"It wasn't me, it wasn't me, lining my pockets with the 'donations' from handicapped kiddies from the 'fund'

Thinking of the wide eyed expression on Redwood's face in that Crimewatch, look at what we FOUND. What a numpty. He did not find it and now that report is not only available to SY but I presume to the PJ as well.

IF THEY (PJ) DIDN'T KNOW, THEY WILL NOW! AFTER READING THIS FORUM, which they do!

this is where the money goes, folks. the Fund paid lawyers to suppress information coming out about the disappearance, because it made the McCanns look as bad as they were.

Boy would I love to see that report.

I wonder how they thought it would be possible for them to get rid of madeleine even if they did find her deceased at the foot of the stairs or something. they seem to mention that possibility although I think it very slim, why would Exton or whomever do efits of some other man if they thought it'd been Gerry carrying her down to the beach.

I wonder if they interviewed Mrs Fenn and others who could testify to anyone seen lurking - but that had to be buried as it'd also implicate them as regards the late nights, crying kids and lack of checking.

Clarence must be on the horn to Carter Ruck for a retraction from the Times even as we speak.

Mitchell is in this up to his scrawny neck.

Remember his 'WE and OUR' when talking about the 'case'.

There is NO way he didn't KNOW about the 'threatening or surpression' relating to this 'report' imo. NO WAY!

He gave up a secure, well paid government job (£80,000pa) to be their 'spokesman' when for all he knew Madeleine could have 'turned up' a day after he left his lucrative job with government.

Unless, of course, he KNEW Madeleine would NOT be 'turning up' for a good few YEARS!

6 YEARS to date at anything up to £80,000 a year.

He's still on a 'retainer' and receiving from the 'fund' to the tune of £28,000 a year whether he 'speaks' or NOT!

So good for HIM Madeleine didn't turn up 'the next day', so to speak!

Not saying, just saying.

Come on Blacksmith. Would love to hear his take on this.

Cannot believe they got someone from McCann side to say that the report would have been a distraction and they preferred to focus on Bundleman, oh wow.

Clarence, remember, you have to maintain control of the press and the bank. Who is talking who should be maintaining their silent solidarity?

widowan wrote:Come on Blacksmith. Would love to hear his take on this.

Cannot believe they got someone from McCann side to say that the report would have been a distraction and they preferred to focus on Bundleman, oh wow.

Clarence, remember, you have to maintain control of the press and the bank. Who is talking who should be maintaining their silent solidarity?

Clarence vs Murdoch?

Hmm, let me think...

I know which one i would back and his name dosen't start with a C!

Can we presume from this that Murdoch is no longer "on side?" I always thought he'd turn on them for the right story.

The Sunday Times has acquired a reputation for the strength of its investigative reporting – much of it by its award-winning Insight team says Wikipedia.

I wonder if the news McCanns had gotten that made them look so wretched back in May, was that the very report they paid to have done and then suppressed had the critical information in it that could have helped find their daughter and bring her home, had they not suppressed it lest it be a distraction to the Fund raising.

widowan wrote:Can we presume from this that Murdoch is no longer "on side?" I always thought he'd turn on them for the right story.

The Sunday Times has acquired a reputation for the strength of its investigative reporting – much of it by its award-winning Insight team says Wikipedia.

I wonder if the news McCanns had gotten that made them look so wretched back in May, was that the very report they paid to have done and then suppressed had the critical information in it that could have helped find their daughter and bring her home, had they not suppressed it lest it be a distraction to the Fund raising.

Was Murdoch EVER 'onside'?

He sells papers,,,,,,,,,,that's it.

I heard he's bought a BUS!

Wonder if anyone will be thrown under it?

IF the McScams ever thought 'good ol' uncle Rupert' then in their own words 'we were naive'

Oh yes!, they WERE, imo.

    

That internet stalker per-v GRASS monitor Michael Wrong must be having a heart attack about now reporting this back to his master.

True. I guess I connect the two because he helped Cameron to the PM-ship with his support in the papers and Cameron likes McCanns and the red tops love that story, I presumed some sort of unholy alliance, even if not the "government sponsored white wash"  some think is going down.

However, between another nonsensical headline about a non sighting, or blond Roma child, this certainly tops it, and with the added bonus for a change of sounding like it's TRUE and actually involved journalism.

Brave tortured Kate ... when did SY do the Crimewatch program? Was that last May? They'd have had this information prior to that.

I can't believe mcCanns would fire the investigators who knew what they were doing - I'd presume anyone worth a damn would figure out my lies, which were so blatant and easily disproved - if they couldn't find that out, what chance would they have of finding an abductor?  YOu say "yes, we didn't check that often, congratulations for figuring it out - but your job is to find our daughter so please go chase Smithman"

You don't get all huffy and fire them because they're too GOOD.

OMG! I can hardly believe that I am reading this! The press are going to have a field day! McCanns suppress information that is hightly critical of them just to keep money rolling into the fund! Now we finally know why the McCanns did not sue Halligen. Oakley International seem to have come to the same conclusions as the PJ. The McCanns were not even cooperating with their own private investigators.

One mistake I believe in the article is that Smith now believes that the man he saw was not Gerry. I think it is just that he is not 100% sure that it is Gerry, so does not want to point fingers. His latest official statement was "I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child." I find it very hard to believe that the 60-80% most likely Gerry would suddenly turn into 100% sure not Gerry.

Morning all ...I just copied the Times ready to post the bit they would allow and you are already up and running  

First of all, I think the very first outfit to search for Madeleine was Control Risk and maybe the Government paid . If they were the Firm that drew the e-fit I would think it was given to the McCanns, who in turn gave it to Oakley who did nothing about it. Murdoch has picked his moment , the day before Rebekah Brooks appears in Court. The first time I have read about the McCanns in The Times. Murdoch has been sitting on this info for quite a while I suspect, choosing the right moment, This way he gets his own back on the McCanns for paying them £200,000 for serialisation rights to Kate's book before he realised what a load of old codswallop it was and didn't result in extra sales. Then he resents the way the McCanns used the Sun to get to Cameron to review the case , then Gerry tops it all by joining that group demanding Press regulation. 

jinvta wrote:OMG! I can hardly believe that I am reading this! The press are going to have a field day! McCanns suppress information that is hightly critical of them just to keep money rolling into the fund! Now we finally know why the McCanns did not sue Halligen. Oakley International seem to have come to the same conclusions as the PJ. The McCanns were not even cooperating with their own private investigators.

One mistake I believe in the article is that Smith now believes that the man he saw was not Gerry. I think it is just that he is not 100% sure that it is Gerry, so does not want to point fingers. His latest official statement was "I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child." I find it very hard to believe that the 60-80% most likely Gerry would suddenly turn into 100% sure not Gerry.

Yes, I'd love to know what they found apart from the efits of this guy. they said that mccanns could have found maddie dead outside the apt, and that there were serious anomalies -!!!

Again just purely gob smacked that they would lie when this was at stake. It MATTERED what their timelines were that and other nights - it MATTERED whether Madeleine was waking up and being left to cry previous nights! and they just brushed it under the rug and the amazing bit is, they have someone quoted as saying the press would have gone into a frenzy and it would have been a distraction.

Yes, it can be distracting to have the truth come out if your GOAL is not to find the kid but to fund raise. jesus.